The opinion by the International Court of Justice, also known as the World Court, was quickly welcomed by environmental groups.
Climate scientists talk about new books on climate change
How will humanity react as the earth continues to warm? Author and climate scientist Kate Marvel tackles rage in her new book, “Humanity.”
HAG (Reuters) – The UN Supreme Court on Wednesday submitted its opinion deciding on future environmental lawsuits and said countries must deal with the “urgent and existential threat” of climate change by working together to curb emissions.
The opinion by the International Court of Justice, also known as the World Court, was quickly welcomed by environmental groups. Legal experts said it was a victory for small islands and lowland states and asked the court to clarify the state’s responsibility.
“The Climate Change Convention establishes strict obligations on states,” Judge Iwasaki said, adding that failing to comply with them is a violation of international law.
“The state must cooperate to achieve concrete emission reduction targets,” Iwasaki said, reading the court’s advisory opinion.
He said the national climate plan is the highest ambition and must maintain the standards comprehensively to meet the objectives of the 2015 Paris Agreement, which includes attempting to bring global warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 Fahrenheit).
Under international law, he states: “Human rights to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment are essential to enjoying other human rights.”
Previously, when he began reading the court’s opinions, Judge Iwasaki unveiled the cause of the problem and the need for collective response.
“Gretsune gas emissions are clearly triggered by human activities that are not territorially restricted,” he said.
Though not binding, the deliberations of 15 judges at the ICJ in The Hague have legal and political weights, and future climate cases cannot be ignored, legal experts say.
“This is the beginning of a new era of climate accountability at the global level,” said Danilo Galid, lawyer for Greenpeace.
Climate Justice
The two questions the UN General Assembly called on judges to consider are: And what are the legal consequences of countries that are harmful to the climate system?
During a two-week hearing at the ICJ last December, wealthy countries in the Global North told the judge that existing climate treaties, including the 2015 Paris Agreement, are the basis for determining liability, with the almost non-binding existing climate treaties.
Developing countries and small island states have advocated for stronger measures, in some cases legally binding emissions, and financial aid to the largest emitter of climate-warming greenhouse gases.
Advocates of climate action gathered outside the ICJ ahead of the verdict, saying, “What do we want? Climate justice! When do we want it?”
Paris Agreement
In 2015, at the end of the UN talks in Paris, over 190 countries committed to pursuing efforts to limit global warming to 1.5 C (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit).
The agreement fails to curb the growth of global greenhouse gas emissions.
Late last year, in a recent “Emissions Gap Report,” by taking on the country’s commitment to tackling climate change compared to what is needed, the UN said current climate policy would lead to global warming of over 3C (5.4F), more than 2,100 pre-industrial levels.
According to June figures from the Grantham Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, climate-related lawsuits have been tightened when campaigners try to consider businesses and governments, with roughly 3,000 lawsuits being filed in 60 countries.
So far, the results have been mixed.
A German court in May abandoned the case between Peruvian farmers and German energy giant RWE, but his lawyers and environmentalists said the 10-year-old case was a victory in a climate case that could spur similar lawsuits.
Earlier this month, the American Human Rights Court, which holds more jurisdiction than 20 Latin American and the Caribbean, said in a separate advisory opinion that members must work together to tackle climate change.
Actors say the court’s opinion on Wednesday should be a turning point, even if the verdict itself is advice.
The ruling could make it easier for states to explain other states than climate issues. It is theoretically possible to ignore the ICJ ruling, but lawyers say the state is generally reluctant to do so.
(Additional reporting by Ali Withers, written by Valerie Volkovich, Zoran Mikretic, Stephanie Van Den Berg and Ingrid Melander, edited by Ed Osmond and Barbara Lewis)
